Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38405548›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2024

A perspective on FAIR quality control in multiplexed imaging data processing.

Wouter-Michiel A M Vierdag, Sinem K Saka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wouter-Michiel A M VierdagGenome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sinem K SakaGenome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiplexed imaging approaches are getting increasingly adopted for imaging of large tissue areas, yielding big imaging datasets both in terms of the number of samples and the size of image data per sample. The processing and analysis of these datasets is complex owing to frequent technical artifacts and heterogeneous profiles from a high number of stained targets To streamline the analysis of multiplexed images, automated pipelines making use of state-of-the-art algorithms have been developed. In these pipelines, the output quality of one processing step is typically dependent on the output of the previous step and errors from each step, even when they appear minor, can propagate and confound the results. Thus, rigorous quality control (QC) at each of these different steps of the image processing pipeline is of paramount importance both for the proper analysis and interpretation of the analysis results and for ensuring the reusability of the data. Ideally, QC should become an integral and easily retrievable part of the imaging datasets and the analysis process. Yet, limitations of the currently available frameworks make integration of interactive QC difficult for large multiplexed imaging data. Given the increasing size and complexity of multiplexed imaging datasets, we present the different challenges for integrating QC in image analysis pipelines as well as suggest possible solutions that build on top of recent advances in bioimage analysis.

Indexed as

FAIR dataimage analysisimage datamultiplexed imagingquality control

Identifiers

PMID38405548
PMCPMC10885342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.